Reported shoulder nudge while at a computer browsing a website
A caller tells Art Bell that [quote withheld] while at their computer browsing the Coast to Coast website, the caller felt a hard nudge on their shoulder. The caller says they thought their wife had touched them, looked up, and found no one there. Art Bell then offers a theory linking computer frequencies to a different vibrational state.
This clip comes from the source recording. AI chose where it starts and ends, so it may start or end a little early or late. The word-for-word transcript is not published. You can hear the source recording on the Internet Archive (file “Ghost to Ghost 2004.mp3”, starting at 1:41:08). Is this you, or someone you know? Ask for a correction or removal.
The story as told
The caller, who is identified in the transcript only as the caller, says that [quote withheld] they were sitting at their computer going through the Coast to Coast website. The caller says they [quote withheld] The caller reports that they thought it was their wife, looked up as if she were right there, and found that “there wasn't nothing.” The caller does not describe seeing anyone, hearing anything, or any other detail of the surroundings. The host then says he understands and moves into an explanation. Art Bell says that when someone is on the website they are on a computer, and he links this to a “vibrational state” discussed on the program. The host states that when sitting at a computer, the person is [quote withheld] such as 60 Hz, 70 Hz, or 80 Hz depending on the refresh rate, and that this is [quote withheld] The host concludes that in the computer age people may begin to see more of what they could not previously see. The caller does not state their own theory of what caused the nudge, and this part of the broadcast ends before any further follow-up with them. Earlier lines in the transcript show the same caller discussing other experiences, but they are marked as background and are not part of this story.
Reported events, in order
- 0:01
The caller says that just the other night they were sitting at their computer going through the Coast to Coast website.
- 0:13
The caller reports feeling a hard nudge on their shoulder and says they thought it was their wife, looked up, and no one was there.
- 0:19
The host responds and begins offering a theory linking computer use to paranormal perception.
- 0:33
The host states that a person sitting at a computer receives a certain frequency and that this can affect the brain and allow a different vibrational rate.
Claims
Each claim is labeled as something the person telling the story noticed (observation), what they made of it (interpretation), something others told them (hearsay), or something the host said (host statement).
- observation· 0:01
The caller says that just the other night they were sitting at their computer going through the Coast to Coast website.
- observation· 0:13
The caller reports feeling a hard nudge on their shoulder.
- observation· 0:13
The caller says they thought it was their wife.
- observation· 0:13
The caller reports that when they looked up there was no one there.
- host statement· 0:33
The host states that sitting at a computer means receiving a certain frequency.
- host statement· 0:43
The host states that the computer’s refresh rate slowly affects the brain and allows a different vibrational rate.
Scores, with reasons
An AI model gave these scores using a fixed set of scoring rules (scoring-v1). They are editorial judgments and rough guides, not the odds that anything paranormal happened. How scoring works.
This is a firsthand but very brief story with one coherent event, so closeness to the source is moderately strong. Specificity is low, and ordinary explanations such as a muscle twitch or a misreading are easy fits. That keeps the score at the level for a brief firsthand story with an easy explanation.
Evidence for and against
- Firsthand report: the caller says they [quote withheld]
- The sequence is consistent: the caller thought it was their wife, looked up, and reports “there wasn't nothing.”
- No named place, exact date, or checkable detail beyond [quote withheld]
- The caller does not address ordinary possibilities, and the event is a single ambiguous sensation.
- The story is very short, with no follow-up questions or description of the surroundings.
- The label on one line ([quote withheld]) may be wrong about who is speaking.
- 0:01
- 0:13
- 0:13
What the model inferred (not said on air): The score treats the brief report as something that can be assessed but not as detailed. It uses only transcript content and does not credit the host’s enthusiasm or the caller’s delivery.
The story rests entirely on the caller’s own word. There are no names, dates, records, physical traces, or second witnesses on air, so it falls in the range for the teller’s word alone.
Evidence for and against
- The caller gives a firsthand report.
- No checkable specifics or documentation are provided.
- No second witness speaks on air to confirm the event.
- No outside check was performed. Only the transcript is available.
- 0:13
What the model inferred (not said on air): It is given a score of 5 on the scale of 0 to 10 because this is a personal report that no one else backs up.
An unexplained physical touch with no visible source is mildly eerie. But the story is extremely brief and contains no threat, escalation, harm, or sustained dread. The unresolved ending adds only slight unease.
Evidence for and against
- The caller reports an unseen physical contact: [quote withheld]
- The caller looked up expecting their wife and reports no one was there: “there wasn't nothing.”
- No figure, sound, mood, or malevolent element is described.
- The story is a single ambiguous event.
- The setting and time are described only as [quote withheld]
- 0:13
- 0:13
What the model inferred (not said on air): Creepiness is judged by the effect of the story, not as evidence for the event.
An invisible touch on the shoulder is a stock ghost-story motif. The only mildly distinctive element is the modern computer and website setting, along with the host’s frequency theory. But the caller’s story contains no strange event or rare combination.
Evidence for and against
- Unseen touch: [quote withheld]
- Computer setting: [quote withheld]
- A single, minimal event with no distinctive figure, location, or sequence.
- The computer-frequency explanation comes from the host, not the caller.
- How new the story is compared with the rest of the archive is provisional because the pilot has few stories.
- 0:01
- 0:13
What the model inferred (not said on air): The model’s originality value is set at 35 for a familiar unseen-touch motif with a modern computer setting. No comparison with the rest of the archive is available.
Scoring confidence 0.40 · analysis confidence 0.55 · checked against outside sources: no · evidence available: The caller’s firsthand story.; No physical evidence, documentation, or second witness on air.. The originality score blends the model's score (35) with how rare the story's details are across the archive. This method is still provisional.
Ordinary explanations to consider
These are possibilities only. None is a finding about what happened.
- A sudden muscle twitch or spasm in the shoulder could create the sensation of a hard nudge. · The caller reports only [quote withheld] with no visible source or other physical detail.
- An unnoticed physical contact from clothing, a chair, or another object could be felt as a nudge. · The transcript gives no description of the chair, clothing, or surroundings, so this cannot be ruled in or out.
- The caller may have misread a routine sensation because they expected their wife to be nearby. · The caller says [quote withheld] before looking up, but the transcript does not say the caller’s wife was present or nearby.
What stands out
The reported strange event is unusually minimal, a single hard nudge on the shoulder. Most of this part of the broadcast is the host’s speculative computer-frequency theory rather than detail from the caller.
Related stories
Matched by shared recurring details, categories, and wording.